Random Observations on the Sotomayor Nomination

Un-"wise" analysis
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has drawn criticism for saying in an October 2001 speech, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I wonder why so little of the analysis of that statement has been on the crucial word "wise"?

For example, during Sunday morning's talk shows, Bob Scheiffer didn't include the word "wise" when delivering this quote to his guests on Face the Nation. In David Gregory's summary of the quote when discussing it with Brian Williams late in the broadcast of Meet the Press, he dropped the word, too.

Yet it is hard to disagree with a statement that a "wise person" would "more often than not" reach "better" conclusions than just a regular person would. If this is true, isn't it logical that a "wise" person of one sex or ethnicity would decide better than just a regular person of the opposite sex or another ethnic group? It would thus follow that "a wise Latina woman" would be likely to reach a "better" conclusion than just a regular "white male."

Maybe the logic of being "wise" leading "more often than not" to "better" choices is so obvious that it's been ignored in this debate. Yet perhaps Judge Sotomayor is pointing out what many have believed, in the past, if not still, that just a regular white male would reach "better" decisions than a "wise" person of a different race or gender.

Yale Law School in the '70s
While there have been stories on how Judge Sotomayor, if approved, would be the sixth Roman Catholic currently on the Supreme Court, I haven't seen anyone note that she would be the third Yale Law School grad (Class of 1979) from the same decade, joining Clarence Thomas (1974) and Samuel Alito (1975).

Furthermore, when you factor in my classmates from Yale Law 1973, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, as well as White House Counsel Greg Craig (Yale Law 1972), it's clear that there were a lot of bright, ideologically diverse people at Yale Law School as students during that decade.

Second Amendment
Some have been attacking Judge Sotomayor for her decisions on gun rights, but as I point out in my statement released today, she has just followed precedent.

Until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the Second Amendment as something tied to a "well regulated militia" and not as an individual right. Given that long-standing interpretation, it's not surprising that the Supreme Court had not "incorporated" the yet-to-be-discovered individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense to the states prior to the June 26, 2008 Heller decision.

Furthermore, since Heller dealt with the District of Columbia (a federal enclave), that decision did not have to deal with the issue of state incorporation.

In coming months and years, the Supreme Court will have to deal with that issue, as well as the application to specific laws of Justice Scalia's long list of gun restrictions, which he indicated were "presumptively lawful." These restrictions include limits on who can get guns, where they can be taken, how they are sold, how they are stored, and what kinds of guns they are.

Judge Sotomayor's respect for precedent, as well as her real world experiences as a prosecutor, give me hope that she will understand the need for responsibilities as well as rights when it comes to evaluating gun laws.

***

There will be a robust debate over Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court in the weeks and months to come. While discussion will range from the profound to the trivial, I hope that the process will proceed with the level of respect and decorum toward Judge Sotomayor that she has clearly earned.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[ProGunAmerican]

It looks like the Brady's are grasping at anything they can call a victory. If the nomination of Sotomayor is a victory to them, all I can say is ..... lol! Kennedy is still the swing vote, Obama just replaced a liberal justice with a liberal justice, doesn't change anything. Also, so what if she doesn't think the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, 43 out of the 50 states have the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions, so why does it even matter? The real danger could be in the fact that if the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, what says the other 9 do?

[durnik123]

Paul, so very much like the lawyer you are to focus your remarks on a word in the sentence that is not even a significant part of the statement. “wise latina woman” vs. “white male.” Why no adjective with the “white male” statement. I think Sonja’s narcissism is showing with her choice of adjective when comparing herself to others. Does she see herself as “wise” while the rest of us are not?

Like I stated previously, leave it to a lawyer to cherry pick relatively insignificant words in an attempt to alter the meaning of a statement. Much like your classmate Bill Clinton did during his impeachment hearings. What is the definition of “is”?

But you are used to doing that also with the 2A by focusing on the word “militia” or “regulated” when is has been proven that it is not part of the operative clause “the right of the people to …”

[djkrlsn]

What is better than that is Dennis Hennigan leaving out "the right of the people" out of the 2nd amendment on SCOTUS steps

[djkrlsn]

Since there is now a split between circuits on incorporation, I am sure that incorporation will be on the SCOTUS docket soon. Does ANYONE think that incorporation WILLNOT come around, especially since it looks like the HEller decision is leaning that way

[molonlabe]

"I wonder why so little of the analysis of that statement has been on the crucial word "wise"? For example, during Sunday morning's talk shows, Bob Scheiffer didn't include the word "wise" when delivering this quote to his guests on Face the Nation. In David Gregory's summary of the quote when discussing it with Brian Williams late in the broadcast of Meet the Press, he dropped the word, too."

You mean like when Dennis Henigan ommitted the sentence "of the people" from his quote of the 2nd Amendment?

Pot, meet Kettle.

[45superman]

He he--well done, Molonlabe.

[Bandofotters]

I don't think that there should be any focus on the term "wise". When I read it, it appeared to imply not only to a Latino but to a White even though not explicitly stated. Otherwise the comment would make no logical sense at all except to the spin doctors.

[45superman]

"Yet it is hard to disagree with a statement that a 'wise person' would 'more often than not' reach 'better' conclusions than just a regular person would. If this is true, isn't it logical that a 'wise' person of one sex or ethnicity would decide better than just a regular person of the opposite sex or another ethnic group? It would thus follow that 'a wise Latina woman' would be likely to reach a "better" conclusion than just a regular 'white male.'"

Come on, Paul, you can do better than that. By your interpretation, she was basically saying that she "would hope that a wise person would reach a better conclusion than a (not so wise) person."

Aside from the fact that if that's really what she was saying, she should have been nominated not for the Supreme Court, but for Captain Obvious, why did she bring up "Latina woman" and "white male" at all?

[twogunmojo]

when are you going to support the police leaving their guns at the station when off duty so tragic accidents like the officer on officer violence in new york this week could have been prevented....and are you boycotting national parks now...paul...paul...are you there paul....

[HisXLNC]

Or when will he advocate police officers not taking their guns into the wilderness so they won't poach?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523545,00.html?test=latestnews

[kaveman4]

I think the funniest thing about this story is that they were poaching while ON DUTY.

Ya know, when they're supposed to be protecting and serving.

[dcaven]

I don't really have that much to add to the above posts. I would, however, like to express my concern that seemingly every single appointment having to do with this administration involves a person with an extreme anti-gun position. A position usually backed by a clear agenda to limit access to firearms by law abiding citizens. I've never been so concerned about the changes in government in my life. On the plus side, many Democrats have backed off their gun control agenda. How long can it last if government at its highest levels supports civilian disarmament?

David

[djkrlsn]

When incorporation comes before SCOTUS, I just hope the unwise Latina doesn't go into contortions to deny incorporation (since the rest of the BOR is incorporated--I see little logic in refusing to deny incorporation especially since the RKBA is one of the rights most egregiously denied to minorities FIRST)

[kaveman4]

Just noticed something, Paul.

Your posts jumped from your utter disappointment about the Tiarht thingie straight to Sotomayor.

Why no mention of congress passing and Obama signing the guns in National Parks thingie into law?

It must sting a bit spending your precious few resources winning an injuction against the Bush change, only to have an even more pro-gun bill signed by the messiah.

But don't worry yourself, I honestly don't think the environment will by harmed in any way. That was your main concern, wasn't it?

[molonlabe]

"It must sting a bit spending your precious few resources winning an injuction against the Bush change, only to have an even more pro-gun bill signed by the messiah."

Hey, they're doing pro bono work for Pittsburgh! They can't be THAT strapped for cash! I'm sure the Joyce Foundation would rather the BC waste their money on futile litigation rather than give over $200(k)/yr away to two employees of the Violence Policy Center.

[djkrlsn]

It must really irritate Paul that the NRA has much more influence than the BC, especially after proclaiming that the MRA lost and the BC won back in November (come to think of it, it sure doesn't look like the BC won very much in November especially since it looks like the influence of the BC has gone down in the last few months

[fishyjay]

kaveman4: Just noticed something, Paul.
Your posts jumped from your utter disappointment about the Tiarht thingie straight to Sotomayor.
Why no mention of congress passing and Obama signing the guns in National Parks thingie into law?

That IS a good question. Consider:

Suppose gunowners experienced a major setback. Would they be quiet? No, just the opposite. There would be new arguments, notices of protests, threats of political retribution at the ballot box.

But from the BC and their supporters here: nothing. No wonder they are losing.

[kaveman4]

Can any supporter of the Brady Campaign mention a single gun control law they believe to be unreasonable?

Has the BC ever opposed a single gun control law proposed anywhere?

I thought so.

[djkrlsn]

Unreasonable gun laws per the BC--shall issue CCW, the Tiarht amendment, the law requiring destruction of the record of the background check once approved, the law protecting manufacturers from Bloomie inspired lawsuits--the only laws the BC finds unreasonable are the ones protecting law abiding gun owners

[confidance government]

You have just given me the only reason I need to oppose her nomination. Honestly, you think an endorsement from the Brady Campaign is going to assuage our concerns regarding her opinion on the 2nd amendment?

[mikeb302000]

Paul says, "Until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the Second Amendment as something tied to a "well regulated militia" and not as an individual right."

Odin says, "The truth is that of roughly 40 US Supreme Court opinions which mentioned, refer to, or quote, in whole or in part, the 2nd Amendment or right to keep and bear arms, 39 of them have supported the individual right reading."

If the truth lies somewhere in between, my money's on Paul Helmke. Even the words of the 2nd Amendment themselves lend credence to what Paul said.

About the violence in Chicago, I happened to write something about that today, including this:

Let's imagine Chicago with extremely lax gun laws, you know the kind where almost anybody can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Over the next year or so the sales of firearms would skyrocket in that city, making gun availability far more prevalent than it is today.

Do you think there would be less gun violence or more?

[Thirdpower]

"my money's on Paul Helmke"

even though you state they have the political savvy of schoolchildren?

"the kind where almost anybody can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun."

And where are these laws? Why doesn't the rest of the state have the same levels of violence that Chicago does?

[kaveman4]

Here's a better idea.

Why not do some research and fuind out for yourself whether Paul or Odin is correct?

But I guess you prefer to simply agree with those you already align yourself with rather than educating yourself on the issue.

I suggest you start with US vs Cruikshank.

[molonlabe]

Nice try. But those sheeple who aren't afraid to stray from the herd will quickly point out that despite a GUN BAN, Chicago accounts for approx 60% of the homicides in the state of IL while only comprising 22% of its population.

And looking further into the criminal recidivism rate of those offenders, you can quickly rule out those same criminals being armed by FFL's since they are already prohibited buyers.

Doesn't it stink when sensationalism and hypotheticals are easily debunked with reason and facts?

[LindaCat]

Troops being ordered into battle without being adequately armed was such a problem in those days that the Foundering Fathers repaired the issue through the Second Amendment.

The following may help.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml

Hypothetical thought experiments have their use but are ultimately very limited in their utility. Let's not ignore the gun law experimentation that has been performed at the state and local level over the decades and the results. The utility of these experiments is very robust.

[djkrlsn]

And shall issue CCW has been far more successful at reducing crime than DC and Chicago style gun bans--Cesare said it correctly--the ONLY people that will obey gun bans are those that are inclined to obey the law anyway--criminals will ALWAYS BE ARMED

[OdinsEye]

"If the truth lies somewhere in between, my money's on Paul Helmke. "

The truth is not somewhere in between.

"Even the words of the 2nd Amendment themselves lend credence to what Paul said."

No, actually they do not. The sentence that is the Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms is in any way dependent on participation in a militia.

[djkrlsn]

So stated in Heller--the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL ONE based on the right to self defense

[OdinsEye]

"Until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the Second Amendment as something tied to a "well regulated militia" and not as an individual right. "

As usual, Paul has a bit of a revisionist view of history.

The truth is that of roughly 40 US Supreme Court opinions which mentioned, refer to, or quote, in whole or in part, the 2nd Amendment or right to keep and bear arms, 39 of them have supported the individual right reading.

"Furthermore, since Heller dealt with the District of Columbia (a federal enclave), that decision did not have to deal with the issue of state incorporation."

So why exactly is Paul making a big deal out of the USSC not mentioning incorporation in it?

"which he indicated were "presumptively lawful." "

Again, Paul misreads the meaning of the decision. The "presumptively lawful" part only meant that the Heller decision did not overturn things en masse, but rather each case would have to be weighed on its own merits. It did not mean, as Paul and some others aver, that the laws would withstand legal scrutiny under the Constitution.

[Leifrakur]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Note the word "hope," something that springs eternal. What could be wrong with hoping for (or even expecting) the best from a wise Latina woman?

[djkrlsn]

But it is indeed reasonable to argue if Sotomayor is wise (since she is an activist judge)

[OdinsEye]

Here is a clue:

Anyone who considers themself wise, isn't. But they probably are arrogant.

Here is another clue:

Anyone who asserts their life experiences are automatically more rich than another person's is arrogant and delusional.

[Thirdpower]

"that decision did not have to deal with the issue of state incorporation."

That's right Paul, it doesn't. That's what the Chicago handgun case is about. That's another outright ban that your organization supports, kind of like the DC handgun ban. All the while stating your organization was not a 'gun ban' group.

We all know where the Brady Campaign stands on gun rights and it's not for 'reasonable, common-sense' laws.

[djkrlsn]

Judging from the plain words of the 14th amendment--it sure looks like the intention was to prevent abuse like what is seen in Chicago (where the RKBA has been emasculated to uselessness) and California (where the 9th Circus incorporated the 2nd). And as far as that goes--if Paul assures us that Proposal X is "reasonable, commonsense gun control"--it is anything but reasonable or common sense--because it is only the Bradybot brigade that thinks gun bans are reasonable and having disarmed victims and heavily armed criminals is common sense (it is the criminals that should be disarmed and in jail).

[LindaCat]

I'm looking forward to her dancing about during the Confirmation Hearings as to why the individual right as defined by Heller should not be incorporated through the 14th Amendment. Specifically, Amar pages 174 (Section 6)
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.shtml
No doubt the Nominee and her anti-gun extremist freak sponsors are scratching over this and trying to construct squiggly responses to minimize damage.

[djkrlsn]

Lindacat--thanks for the link--and I should introduce you to Jack (a 20lb Persian that regularly eats our 90lb Lab's food (while Coco is eating from the same bowl)) and regularly steals the dog's bed